The Problem-organization-problem-more-organization cycle

The tenancy for bureaucracies to bloat is a well-known problem. This is a limiting factor on organisational growth, also called dis-economies scale. After looking at municipal finance in US cities, Marshall Meyer observed that formal organisation, or bureaucracy was constructed as solutions to problems faced by these institutions. Such organisation provides control and accountability. However any new bureaucratic process can and often does pose new and unintended problems in addition to those initially faced. According to Meyer this process of constructing "organisation poses problems requiring even more organization as a solution." This creates what Meyer described as a problem-organization-problem-more organization cycle. This cycle is important for the following reasons.

Risk

This bolting-on of additional organisation leads to a spiral of increasing complexity. In these bloated bureaucracies there are more components and more interdependences between these components and more potential points of failure and therefore increased risk.

Information Overload

These components and their relationships with each need understanding and documenting in order to be managed, adding to the information overload. All this requires resources and capital - people and technology - adding to the costs and impacting on productivity. When the problems faced is one of improving efficiency and productivity and the solution constructed comes with new bureaucracy, itself with an impact on productivity there is the possibility of a paradox. One where trying improve productivity makes it worse.

Hofstadter's law

It suggests a tendency towards increasing complexity in the construction of organisational bureaucracy and that level of complexity is beyond what would be theoretically expected. Whether by accident of design this creates this an elaborateness. Awareness of the possibility of extra or hidden depths may help develop better planning. Take into account Hofstadter's Law - It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law.

Unwelcome change

It is a source of unanticipated and unwelcome change. It is possible that some of these new problems do not get a much as attention as others, they may not be seen important to core business objectives, leading to botched and half completed jobs. Many hurried business processes may be developed without due planning and documentation. This is a particular issue in IT development. Known as Technical Debt this can lead to problems later on when systems need extending or redeveloping.

IT systems reflect organisations and their control mechanisms. IT need to keep up with the problem-organization-problem-more-organization cycle, finding solutions to the problems posed by the creation of organisational structure. Extending systems or making changes poses challenges, especially in more complex organisations with high levels of interdependencies.

Interoperability

With IT systems there can be tendency for them to be conceived as an ever lasting solution to a particular business problem. These often neglect the potential for changes to the original system requirements or the impact of other systems and their changes. These shifting goal posts are big factor in the failures seen in IT projects. Also new or changed business problems can result in a bolt on approach, with a reluctance to start from scratch or abandon the familiar, the result is additional systems adding to the complexity. The result is IT set-ups cans often resemble a precarious Heath Robertson contraption.

Another dimension to elaborateness faced by IT is that of interoperability. No systems work in splendid isolation. There is usually a smorgasbord different hardware, operating systems, file formats and applications, all trying to work together in places and organizations working to different procedures and laws. All these components are subject to and responding to changes impacting no only on them.

Questions this raises

The solution to problem bureaucracy of yet more problem bureaucracy may or may not be a necessary evil, but it begs a question as to how much red-tape out there is really necessary. How many systems, processes, reports, offices and their people carry out functions without really asking why or whether it is still needed. In these cases bureaucracy can be thought a ritual - they are done because they have always be done.

For some intuitions this could be indicative of a managerialist culture that seeks certainty and avoids change. The motivation for more integrated and radical change may not be there in some organisations. The possibility of simplification may have not been considered or avoided.

Is there something in the human condition that either denies this complexity or has a perverse affinity towards it and a desire create this elaborateness? Wishful thinking for safe certainties may also give rises to a misplace sense of permanence for some, hoping for no unpleasant surprises. For others the realities and possibilities of a changing world may not be apparent.

Emerging paradigms of business development are putting more emphasis on the inevitability of change. This is particularly true for Agile methodologies we see being used in IT. However development methodologies, agile or otherwise, Tend have a project model which assumes a start and an end. The reality is there is never an end but rather cycles of change and rarely a clearly defined start. Various development models do use improvement cycles, where experience is learned from and constructive change is driven by this. In these approaches change is seem as a good thing.

There is plenty of literature on improving and changing organisations and many businesses and consultants offering services in this area. Areas that seem neglected in particularly in IT include, the necessary preservation of legacy systems and the curation of their data. Integration between disparate systems. Dealing unforeseen and unexpected problems that are the inevitable consequence of spiralling complexity. These represent the unglamorous back-end of systems development life-cycles.

The project orientation view of IT ultimately seeks to create perfect and everlasting systems, this is unrealistic. In the Japanese concept of Wabi-Sabi, nothing is perfect, nothing last and nothing is finished. Mostly associated with arts and crafts the Wabi-Sabi mindset seeks simplicity and accepts change. This is something the IT world could embrace.

Source Limits to Bureaucratic Growth, Marshall W. Meyer, 1985, published by Walter de Gruyter
| Duncan Stonebridge. Back